Intel 7nm Delay Fallout: Law Firm Launches Securities Fraud Investigation

[leadeater]

This is stupid, I do not support. Nothing can ever be taken for granted and investors should know this better than anyone else. Problems can and do happen, that's why they are called target dates, target. You can miss targets.

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, 5x5 said:

In short - they want to know if Intel execs or investors dumped a bunch of stock before the info went public. Basically, it's an investigation into whether select individuals abused their status to get rich before the stock plummets.

It's not just that, they are filing suit over being mislead by Intel's statements and projections. They are also pissed off because Intel gave projections over the impacts of previous issues like Spectre/Meltdown but those were not that accurate. Thing is Intel can only speculate on the impacts of stock market value for those things as best as anyone else can, the impacts were worse than projected but I'm sorry sometimes that is just how it goes.

[Warin]

Nothing in the OP indicates to me that Intel execs were involved in insider trading.  It does look like a lawsuit intended to claim losses are due to fraud.  Not being able to make a process work is hardly fraud.  It is also highly amusing to see everyone on the "omg, intel is doomed" train.  It is exactly the same sort of conjecture people were making about AMD not all that long ago.  Intel isn't going anywhere. Even with losses, they still have a market cap of over 2 billion dollars. Or, nearly 3 times as big as AMD.  Or around the same as Disney.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Warin said:

Nothing in the OP indicates to me that Intel execs were involved in insider trading.  It does look like a lawsuit intended to claim losses are due to fraud.  Not being able to make a process work is hardly fraud.  It is also highly amusing to see everyone on the "omg, intel is doomed" train.  It is exactly the same sort of conjecture people were making about AMD not all that long ago.  Intel isn't going anywhere. Even with losses, they still have a market cap of over 2 billion dollars. Or, nearly 3 times as big as AMD.  Or around the same as Disney.

 

Quote

The investigation centers on whether Intel misrepresented and concealed manufacturing and performance issues with its next generation 7-nanometer chips.

https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/60513

 

Insider trading isn't mentioned at all.

[Bombastinator]

14 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I'm confused as to where they think the fraud took place. Did Intel make specific promises to investors? Is this just a bunch of rich people getting litigious because they lost money on the stock market?

 

I thought the entire point of the stock market was sometimes you win, most of the time you lose?

There are requirements for companies to report changes to future outlook in a timely manner.  I suspect there is a claim that they did not do this.  It seems thin to me.  At issue will be what did intel know and when did they know it and was their previous claim that 7nm was on track knowingly false.  As for rich people airing because they lost money on the stock market? Also yes.  Not just rich people though.  Intel was Fortune 500 and a lot of other things, so many index funds will be affected, which is how many Americans do retirement savings now.  A lot of them will own shares of a fund that owns shares in intel.

[xg32]

8 hours ago, pas008 said:

.

it'll likely be a settlement as it's a pain in the ass to prove "planned sales" of stocks as related to the insider info. I'm interested in the stock around 42-46 as there really isn't any value in the market right now lol. These lawsuits don't affect stock price 99% of the time (tsla's been sued multiple times), the stock is in a cyclical bear.

[Arika]

More accurate headlime: Rich people tilted over not getting to be more rich faster. 

[leadeater]

50 minutes ago, Arika S said:

More accurate headlime: Rich people tilted over not getting to be more rich faster. 

AMD shareholders aren't complaining, or I haven't seen them 

[5x5]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

AMD shareholders aren't complaining, or I haven't seen them 

Imagine getting 1000$ worth of AamD stock in 2015-16. You'd be getting 70K back now

[mr moose]

When the news article/post makes claims like:  "sent shortwaves through the semiconductor industry"  and "stocks plummet 16%"   When what actually happened was they missed a target and it was disappointing and stocks dropped to 8% below a 6 month average (although not technically because of covid losses in march).   You can bet your arse most of it is conjecture, assumptions and typical media sensationalism. 

[5x5]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When the news article/post makes claims like:  "sent shortwaves through the semiconductor industry"  and "stocks plummet 16%"   When what actually happened was they missed a target and it was disappointing and stocks dropped to 8% below a 6 month average (although not technically because of covid losses in march).   You can bet your arse most of it is conjecture, assumptions and typical media sensationalism. 

The stock did drop 16% though compared to the point before the news dropped and it still hasn't recovered.

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

The stock did drop 16% though compared to the point before the news dropped and it still hasn't recovered.

Stocks go up and down.  One day drops don’t always mean much.  It’s when they don’t come back up again that it matters.  

[5x5]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

Stocks go up and down.  One day drops don’t always mean much.  It’s when they don’t come back up again that it matters.  

Well, unless there's a sudden surge of good news for intels roadmap, the stock doesn't appear to be moving at all

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Well, unless there's a sudden surge of good news for intels roadmap, the stock doesn't appear to be moving at all

The dude leaving may bump prices.  That someone thinks it’s undervalued may bump prices, that someone mentioning that CPUs aren’t that big a percentage of the company may bum prices.  Shock drops like this generally have a bounce. So do shock spikes.  This is why the 6 month average was mentioned.  6 month averages aren’t as useful these days though it’s one way to take the spike unless out of the curve.  If CPUs are only 20% of the company’s business (I don’t know what the real percentage is) and stock drops 20% that would mean that there will make zero money from that section of business.  8% is still huge.  A years worth of average growth or more.  Intel isn’t going under.  They’ve actually been behind AMD with CPUs before.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

The stock did drop 16% though compared to the point before the news dropped and it still hasn't recovered.

I never said otherwise,  the problem is a single fall or rise or even a little platue means nothing unless it bucks the trends.

 

Stocks rise and fall frequently, this year it has bounced between $68 and $43 spending most of its time in the mid 50's.  Making a fluctuation that fits inside of normal trading trends sound like a major event means the person writing the article wants you to believe it means something more than it likely does or as a result of something it may not.  Only time will tell if this delay has any lasting effect on prices.  As I said they are currently abut 8% below average prices.   For what it's worth their prices did this last year as well, they nose dived from 58 to 44, then after a bit they bounced. 

[5x5]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The dude leaving may bump prices.  That someone thinks it’s undervalued may bump prices, that someone mentioning that CPUs aren’t that big a percentage of the company may bum prices.  Shock drops like this generally have a bounce. So do shock spikes.  This is why the 6 month average was mentioned.  6 month averages aren’t as useful these days though it’s one way to take the spike unless out of the curve.  If CPUs are only 20% of the company’s business (I don’t know what the real percentage is) and stock drops 20% that would mean that there will make zero money from that section of business.  8% is still huge.  A years worth of average growth or more.  Intel isn’t going under.  They’ve actually been behind AMD with CPUs before.

I know they aren't going under lol. But the node failure impacts much more than just CPUs. O we half of Intel's business will suffer the delay, that's why the stock fell like so

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

I know they aren't going under lol. But the node failure impacts much more than just CPUs. O we half of Intel's business will suffer the delay, that's why the stock fell like so

A company with lowered value that isn’t going to go under but is likely to recover in a couple years is considered a good buy by some.  stock buyer plans and expectations are everything.  It all depends on when a buyer want sot sell.  Some people are long holders who plan on keeping the stock for 5 years or more.

If it’s a big problem (it looks to me like one) it may have a very anemic bounce and fall some more.  Or not.  It does make things shaky and the market hates shakes.  Might affect other things like suppliers and customers as well.  

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

I know they aren't going under lol. But the node failure impacts much more than just CPUs. O we half of Intel's business will suffer the delay, that's why the stock fell like so

Exactly. Since Intel FAB most of their own silicon, having FAB issues will feedback into other parts of the business. Suddenly the chipset division, WiFi division, ARM division etc are all stuck sitting on ass waiting for FAB to provide them.

[5x5]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

A company with lowered value that isn’t going to go under but is likely to recover in a couple years is considered a good buy by some.  stock buyer plans and expectations are everything.  It all depends on when a buyer want sot sell.  Some people are long holders who plan on keeping the stock for 5 years or more.

If it’s a big problem (it looks to me like one) it may have a very anemic bounce and fall some more.  Or not.  It does make things shaky and the market hates shakes.  Might affect other things like suppliers and customers as well.  

The result will start being readily apparent in the latter half of 2020 and first half of 2021

[Valentyn]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

AMD shareholders aren't complaining, or I haven't seen them 

I'm complaining! I sold and only made an okay profit! How dare they only gain so "little" in the past 5 years!

Stonks for new house, instead being able to afford the next NVIDIA Titan!

[Yashiees]

On 7/28/2020 at 6:01 PM, 5x5 said:

Investigation into whether Intel executives abused their positions to get rich before the intel stock price drops because of their repeated failures with regard to the development of new litography nodes.

thank you so much  

[mr moose]

On 7/29/2020 at 7:09 PM, Bombastinator said:

A company with lowered value that isn’t going to go under but is likely to recover in a couple years is considered a good buy by some.  stock buyer plans and expectations are everything.  It all depends on when a buyer want sot sell.  Some people are long holders who plan on keeping the stock for 5 years or more.

If it’s a big problem (it looks to me like one) it may have a very anemic bounce and fall some more.  Or not.  It does make things shaky and the market hates shakes.  Might affect other things like suppliers and customers as well.  

The fluctuations we are seeing are almost definitely not the result of long term investors who will keep their shares because A, long term share price normally pays off and B, for now they are still earning dividends.  AMD might have higher shares, but there are less of them and they aren't paying dividends, so unless I have misunderstood something about share investments they are not very attractive for long term investors.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The fluctuations we are seeing are almost definitely not the result of long term investors who will keep their shares because A, long term share price normally pays off and B, for now they are still earning dividends.  AMD might have higher shares, but there are less of them and they aren't paying dividends, so unless I have misunderstood something about share investments they are not very attractive for long term investors.

In the US at least, Not all long term investors concentrate on dividends.  Some do.  I don’t know the relative percentages though I suspect such things are well known.  The vast majority of stock today is held by fund companies and people buy shares in that instead and are used for such things as retirement accounts.  Pensions in the US basically no longer exist.   The Regan administration introduced laws that destroyed them by making pension funds “raidable”.  Such companies often advertise percentage growth value year on year rather than dividend payouts which are often simply put into additional stock buys.  This makes dividend payouts a fairly rare thing these days.